|
Findings of Fact for Petition 2020•
<br />The Petitioner's agent; Angel and co -council Stephanie attend the hearing via telephone. They were
<br />representing the taxpayers Joshua and Ana Victor was present at the hearing representing the
<br />Property Appraisers office via telephone.
<br />The subject is a single family home located in Pembroke Falls. The subject is a 2 story home with 2,536 adjusted
<br />building square feet. The subject has 4 bedrooms and 2..5 baths and a 2 car garage. The subject has a lot size. of 12,828
<br />and is located on a lake. The subj ect currently has a pool that is being installed, but was not present as of the
<br />assessment date of January 1, 2020.
<br />The Property Appraiser provided the Broward county property appraiser's certification of evidence, Subject's property
<br />record card, Aerial of subject, Subjects sketch, Exterior photos of subject, (2) Summaries of comparable sales with one
<br />taking into consideration the roof replacement and one not taking into consideration the roof replacement, Comparable
<br />location map, Comparable property record cards, DR -493, Florida Statutes and misc. information. The Special
<br />Magistrate finds the Property Appraiser's evidence admissible, relevant and credible.
<br />The Property Appraiser provided as rebuttal evidence the Petitioner`s Roof estimate for $20,250 from M. Romero's
<br />roofing & inspections with comments, Petitioner's Property details on 1.602 NW 143 Way, 14222 NW 23 Street, 13283
<br />NW 18 Street, 13068 NW 19 Street, 13198 NW 19 Street, 1938 NW 130 Avenue and 131.66 NW 18 Street. The
<br />Special Magistrate finds the Property Appraiser's rebuttal evidence admissible, relevant and credible.
<br />The Property Appraiser utilized 3 comparable sales. All comparables are located in the subject's project of Pembroke
<br />Falls. All comparables are similar in building square footage, age and view amenity. The Property Appraiser's
<br />comparables are good indicators of value.
<br />The Petitioner provided as evidence the Subject's property record card, Roof estimate for $20,250 from M. Romero's
<br />roofing & inspections, Property details on 1602 NW 143 Way; 14222 NW 23 Street, 13283 NW 1.8 Street, 13068 NW
<br />19 Street, 13198 NW 19 Street, 1938 NW 130 Avenue and 13166 NW 18 Street_ The Special Magistrate finds the
<br />Petitioner's evidence is admissible, credible and relevant.
<br />The Petitioner utilized 7 comparable sales. The Petitioner's comparables located at 1602 NW 143 Way, 14222 NW 23
<br />Street, 13283 NW 18 Street, 13068 NW 19 Street, 13198 NW 19 Street and 13166 NW 1.8 Street are all locatedondry
<br />lots and are not the best indicators of value. The comparable sale Iocated at 1938 NW 130 Ave is located on the lake,
<br />but has an inferior view and only 19 feet of lake frontage and'is not the best indicator of value.
<br />The Petitioner stated her client told her there were issues with the roof. The Petitioner.provided a September 14, 2018
<br />estimate for a newroof The estimate did. not state the current roof was leaking or indicate that the roof had any
<br />negative issues. The Petitioner did not provide any evidence such as pictures, reports from contractors or roofing
<br />professionals. In. photos provided by the Property Appraiser on 11/29/18, 1/29/2t and 03/11/21 there were no tarps on
<br />the roof indicating a roof leak- The photos also indicate the roof has not been replaced as of 3!1.1/21. The Petitioners
<br />were unable to give any detail about the roof leak or issue. Therefore, there was not sufficient evidence the subject had
<br />a roof leak or roof issue as of January 1, 2020.
<br />The best sales to indicate the subject's value are the Property Appraiser's comparables as they were similar in adjusted
<br />building square footage, age and view amenity. The subject's market value of $4247010 is 86.3% of the Property
<br />Appraiser's indicated value of $490,,782.
<br />The. Petitioner did not by a Preponderance of the Evidence overcome the. Property Appraisers Presumption of
<br />Correctness.
<br />The requirements for Overcoming a.Presumption of Correctness are by providing by a Preponderance of the Evidence
<br />one of the following.
<br />1. The Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or
<br />2. The Property Appraiser's lust valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal
<br />practices generally applied by the property appraiser to comparable properties Within the, Same County. Subsection
<br />194.301(2)(x.}, F S., as amended by Chaptcr 2009-121, Laws of Florida (House .Sill' 521).
<br />Therefore, the Special Magistrate recommends the petition be Denied.
<br />2020 Page 2 of 3
<br />
|